Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenMarket Inc. (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMarket Inc.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Continues to fail notability standard WP:COMPANY because OpenMarket has not been the subject of sustained coverage in independent sources. This re-creation of the article after the previous deletion is based on "new information" but what it consists of is more press releases, and a large number of non-notable awards. The way we know these awards are non-notable is the total lack of coverage of the awards in reputable, mainstream sources. Instead, the awards are announced in press releases and obscure blogs. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To say this article quotes obscure blogs is a massive overstatement. It references some of the key mobile industry publications all of which have independent editorial teams. Mobile Entertainment has a monthly readership of 100,000 unique views, Mobile Marketing has 40,000 unique views per month and Mobile Marketer as 17,000 page views per day. The industry awards OpenMarket has received are well known in the mobile industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchelljamesfox (talk • contribs) 17:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is this press release.
This is this press release
This is a quick paraphrase of this press release.
Etc. ad nauseam.
WP:ROUTINE defines virtually every link. Routine coverage, in the form of 50 to 100 word blog posts that are direct transcriptions of company announcements, is not substantive coverage. It fails to establish notability. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All or virtually all of the sourcing is to press reports, or to coverage either in Mobile Entertainment or Mobile Marketing, neither one of which I've ever heard of, even as a computer professional. If Mobile Entertainment or Mobile Marketing passed the sniff test at WP:RSN I'd withdraw this !vote. — Brianhe (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andrew³²⁷ 07:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.